Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Soldier beheaded in South East London Soldier beheaded in South East London

05-23-2013 , 05:35 AM
Alf Garnett was brilliant. The blond guy in the middle is Tony Blairs father in law btw.

"Bloody Gandhi…he wouldn't eat his dinner, they gave him India!"
05-23-2013 , 05:38 AM
Just so we're clear it was also ironic though,tbh, I think it was taken at face value by many at the time
05-23-2013 , 05:42 AM
None of which is particularly relevant except to say, according to some, we've been on the edge of the abyss for over 50 years.

Not fallen in yet.
05-23-2013 , 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavster
Just so we're clear it was also ironic though,tbh, I think it was taken at face value by many at the time
He was taking the piss out of people like Imperius. The irony was they mostly nodded in agreement with the nosensical ranting and ravings of a lunatic.
05-23-2013 , 06:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperius
Ah yes, the multiculturalist utopia, coming soon to a city near you. The funny thing is, the far rightists like EDL are the only sane people on this issue in the UK, and the police attack them...
05-23-2013 , 06:43 AM
Quote:
Police were today seen outside a £365,000 detached house in a Lincolnshire village where they raided a home where Adebolajo is listed as having lived in the past.
Lol, God bless the Daily Mail.
05-23-2013 , 06:53 AM
Quote:
Mr Adebolajo, 56, is believed to be a trained nurse now working in a managerial capacity within the NHS.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2U70D7Zua
This story is giving me a headache.
05-23-2013 , 07:35 AM
Could we get that Beaker STATISM! gif redone with MOOZLIMZZZZZ!!!

BTW over the last 50 years the biggest killers of soldiers on UK soil have been (probably) white Irish 'Christians'. I don't expect this statistic to change anytime soon.
05-23-2013 , 07:40 AM
Why are they calling this terrorism if he attacked a soldier. The world is a battlefield, right?
And LOLlibrals.
05-23-2013 , 07:41 AM
No one remembers the 80s, or the 90s. Or anything before 10 minutes ago-unless they want to of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavon Affair
Why are they calling this terrorism if he attacked a soldier. The world is a battlefield, right?
And LOLlibrals.
Well, I wouldn't say the world is a battlefield, this was some random guy wearing a pro-military t-shirt who turned out to be a soldier. IMO this was just a horribly brutal religiously/politically motivated murder, a hate crime as well. Unfortunately though 'terrorism' seems to be thrown into the mix as soon as a Muslim is involved. I remember people using the term with the Muslim sex-grooming cases a few years ago. Misuse of the term destroys it's meaning.
05-23-2013 , 07:51 AM
1 dead? gjge
05-23-2013 , 08:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gin 'n Tonic
BTW over the last 50 years the biggest killers of soldiers on UK soil have been (probably) white Irish 'Christians'. I don't expect this statistic to change anytime soon.
but they were gentlemen bombers embodied with fundamentally decent british values
05-23-2013 , 08:14 AM
that chick which went up to talk to them in an attempt to calm them down is pretty f stupid
05-23-2013 , 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAIDS
that chick which went up to talk to them in an attempt to calm them down is pretty f stupid

Lambeth is quite a tough area. They are not wimps.

The title of this thread is wrong. The soldier was run over and then hacked to death not beheaded.


What the attacker did was very, very wrong but he did explain his rationale and he did not harm any civilians.
05-23-2013 , 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cwocwoc
and he did not harm any civilians.
well, maybe one
05-23-2013 , 09:11 AM
Why is their view of Islam 'warped'?

Some people interpret it with extreme hate and violence, others interpret it with love and peace. "Interpreting religion in your own way" was a celebrated quality of Christianity in my fairly wide experience of Christianity. The actual rule is "Interpret it your own way as long as it fits in with my way" I suppose.

Both views are based on archaic sacred books, full of myths and legends. Both views have their foundations in lack of logic, hypocrisy and contradiction. Both interpretations are equally as valid and likely to be the truth (somewhere just above 0%)

Fortunately we have morality which most of us derive entirely independently of religion. (This independent morality allows a lot of religious people to practise 'pick and choose' faith).
05-23-2013 , 09:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cwocwoc

What the attacker did was very, very wrong but he did explain his rationale and he did not harm any civilians.


i smell a meme
05-23-2013 , 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullanian
Why is their view of Islam 'warped'?

Some people interpret it with extreme hate and violence, others interpret it with love and peace. "Interpreting religion in your own way" was a celebrated quality of Christianity in my fairly wide experience of Christianity. The actual rule is "Interpret it your own way as long as it fits in with my way" I suppose.

Fortunately we have morality which most of us derive entirely independently of religion. (This independent morality allows a lot of religious people to practise 'pick and choose' faith).
05-23-2013 , 09:45 AM
This about sums everything up

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013...s-on-woolwich/
05-23-2013 , 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperius
Sometimes there is more wisdom in a a pack of "morons" than the entire intelligentsia of a nation as far gone as the UK. Like it or not, EDL probably represents a major power in the collapsing UK of the future. Groups of angry men willing to confront invaders and force change upon your traitorous elites may be the only thing that can save you from an even grimmer fate.The UK is on the brink of an abyss in my opinion, and the dire predictions of Enoch Powell are coming true (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech):

"Here is a decent, ordinary fellow-Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that the country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history."

"We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen."

"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal."

As is usually the case with issues like this, paleoconservatives are being proven right, and leftist social engineers are proving to be delusional and criminal cultural vandals.
Lol Enoch Powell speech. That was 45 years ago. He was wrong then and irrelevant now. Your not a loser because there are black men in Britain, it's much closer to home than that.
05-23-2013 , 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Kenan Malik usually gets it right.
05-23-2013 , 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAIDS
well, maybe one
since he was old enough to be in the military he should be classified as a enemy combatant not a civilian
05-23-2013 , 10:08 AM
1) It wasn't a battlefield
2) He wasn't on duty
3) The rules of war weren't observed
4) The perpetrators are themselves civilians
5) He wasn't wearing a uniform
05-23-2013 , 10:10 AM
Facebook has gone full ****** on this today.

Currently getting lynched by my old serving/ex serving mates after I commented in another ex soldiers status about how all Muslims need to gtf out of our country etc etc

I was even told that the edl aren't racist because they have black members don't you know! (facepalm)

Think I'll just avoid social media for a few weeks and then do some cleansing of my own unfriending all the ******s
05-23-2013 , 10:56 AM
Just dropped in to make a quick point, but the blog posted earlier puts it better than I could:

Quote:
The response by the authorities and the media played into the hands of the perpetrators. The best way to deal with terrorism, David Cameron observed in the immediate aftermath, was to carry on as normal. Yet, in turning the incident into a matter of national security, in suggesting that it might be a form of ‘planned terrorism’, in searching for possible Al Qaeda links, both the authorities and the media provided the murder with exactly the kind of legitimacy that the perpetrators craved.

There has been some debate about whether the film of the machete-wielding murderer justifying his actions should have replayed on TV. Censorship is no answer to such attacks. But while the media should not censor its coverage of such episodes, nor should it turn an incident of horror on the streets on Woolwich into a threat to the whole nation.

      
m